United States v. Raul Fournier-Robles , 599 F. App'x 197 ( 2015 )

Case: 13-50244 Document: 00512998136 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50244
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 8, 2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
RAUL LEONEL FOURNIER-ROBLES, also known as Raul Leonel Fournier,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-1563-3
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Raul Leonel Fournier-Robles (Fournier) appeals his guilty plea
conviction for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise for which he was
sentenced to 300 months of imprisonment. He argues that the district court
violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) by improperly
participating in his plea negotiations.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 13-50244 Document: 00512998136 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2015
No. 13-50244
Because Fournier did not object on this basis in the district court, this
court reviews for plain error. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59
(2002); see also United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2148-50 (2013)
(rejecting contention that improper participation in plea discussions under
Rule 11 requires automatic vacatur rather than analysis under the ordinary
harmless and plain error standards). Fournier must show error that is clear
or obvious and affects his substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556
U.S. 129, 135 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion
to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings. See id.Fournier fails to show that any discussions among the district court, his
first trial attorney, and the attorney for the Government occurred during plea
negotiations rather than after a plea agreement had been negotiated by the
parties and disclosed to the district court. See United States v. Hemphill, 748
F.3d 666, 672-73 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that a district court may properly
discuss and evaluate a plea agreement once it has been disclosed by the
parties). Nor does Fournier show that the district court’s inquiry whether his
second trial attorney intended to adhere to the already-negotiated plea
agreement was improper. See id. Fournier fails to show error, much less clear
or obvious error, by the district court. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
AFFIRMED.
2